If you haven't already, please take a moment and email rviola@arlingtonva.us to provide comments or a note of support. We support the County's proposal, and offer some suggestions for improving the document:

In order to encourage wary businesses and residents to try out the new variable pricing policy, Arlington should devote a portion of the revenue to local transportation and streetscape improvements.

Arlington should encourage public acceptance of the variable pricing proposal by conducting a countywide parking occupancy survey of high-density and commercial districts and publishing the results online, along with a staff evaluation and recommendations.

In general, Arlington should increase or eliminate meter time limits, which are often arbitrary or counterproductive. Once prices are managing occupancy, longer-term parkers will naturally use less convenient or garage spaces, leaving the more convenient spaces for short-term parking.

Any other thoughts or suggestions? Email them to County Staff at rviola@arlingtonva.us. If your comments are received by November 2, they can be considered for the staff proposal before the County Board.

Meanwhile, in DC, today is the last day to comment on the K Street options. Whether you prefer Option 2 (2-lane transitway, 3-lane side roads, no bike lane) or option 3 (transitway with passing lane, 2-lane side roads, bike lane), or have your own plan, DDOT would appreciate hearing your thoughts. Submit your comments here.

Comments

I just submitted my K Street comments. Option 2 supplemented with improved bicycle infrastructure on the parallel on way streets of Eye and L is the best in my opinion. Option 3 would be the jack of all trades master of none philosophy.

I favor Option 2 over Option 3 for several reasons. Commuter buses dwelling for long periods in the Transit way would complicate streetcar integration. Taking away the 3rd auto lane to put in bicycle lanes shows naivety about the importance of curb space for deliveries, taxi stands, valet parking, and meter parking. To complicate all those issues chiefly because WABA wants the cycle lanes in this visible corridor rather than on a parallel street is bad policy. I give WABA credit for being extremely organized and passionate. Those qualities have cultivated a strong voice for their organization. However they don't have what's best, safest, and most practical for everyone at heart.

A potential problem with putting bike lanes on I and L instead of K is that the former are one-way streets, both running west to east. Ideally it wouldn't matter, because the bike lanes would be so rigorously enforced that cars would never come close to the bike lane. In reality, I wonder if it would be harrowing to ride against the traffic in a bike lane.